conebeckham wrote:I trust that it is apparent that both Madhyamaka, and Tathagatagarbha, are at least conceptually-relevant, in reference to these quotes, and especially to the one above, from "The Summary of Maitripa's Mahamudra." It should be apparent to those with discernment that Gampopa did not "add Tathagathagarbha" features to Mahamudra anew.....but that the heritage of the transmission includes both an understanding of Sunyata of the Conditioned, from the Madhyamaka, as well as the ineffable, inconceivable, Primordial Wisdom beyond Extremes, which is the subject of the Tathagatagarbha teachings.

No, all your quotes are based on the luminous nature of the mind etc. found in the tantras.

conebeckham wrote:Actually, the Six Yogas aren't merely a "list," they're a systematic presentation. Quite novel, in many ways. Also I am not certain that Mila or Marpa didn't teach the "non-tantric" Mahamudra --though I agree Gampopa popularized and systematized it.

This was of course begging the question of whether it was Marpa who codified them in this way. Given the Six Yogas of Niguma and Sukhasiddhi it seems highly unlikely. Such a presentation seems to be widespread.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

JohnRammy, you're just wrong--Luminous Mind is mentioned in the Suttas and Nikayas, and in the Tathagatabarbha Sutras like Surangama Sutra and Lankavatara Sutra...as well as is Maitreya/Asanga Shastras, etc. So, merely from the POV of it being "found" outside the Tantras and Dohas, you're wrong.

As Karma Dorje said earlier:

Of course there is great identity between the tathagathagarbha sutras, the tantras and the dohas of mahamudra: they describe the same underlying reality of luminous emptiness. We need not assume that these are all of a single piece historically.

I have granted that "Mahamudra" as a term is found in the Tantras (and in the Dohas, which are mainly tantric in nature), and not in the Sutras. But "Luminous Mind" and it's many synonyms is found in many places. You argued that Mikyo Dorje says the "luminous Mind" as found in Tathagatagarbha doctrine, and the Sutras in general, is different from this mind in the Tantras. So...if you are arguing that the "Luminous Nature of Mind" as found in Non-Tantric Material is different, essentially, than that found in the Dohas and Tantras, would you explain exactly in what way?

To quote from your currently favorite book, "The Center of the Sunlit Sky," p.62:"In the sutras, the Tantric meaning is taught implicitly in a hidden manner, but the Sutric path does not operate with Buddha nature as it is taught in the Tantras."

The question, then, is what is the difference between Buddha Nature as taught in the Sutras, and as taught in the Tantras. Another question might be: is that which is taught implicitly, in a hidden manner, nonetheless "existent" there?

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:JohnRammy, you're just wrong--Luminous Mind is mentioned in the Suttas and Nikayas, and in the Tathagatabarbha Sutras like Surangama Sutra and Lankavatara Sutra...as well as is Maitreya/Asanga Shastras, etc. So, merely from the POV of it being "found" outside the Tantras and Dohas, you're wrong.

As Karma Dorje said earlier:

Of course there is great identity between the tathagathagarbha sutras, the tantras and the dohas of mahamudra: they describe the same underlying reality of luminous emptiness. We need not assume that these are all of a single piece historically.

I have granted that "Mahamudra" as a term is found in the Tantras (and in the Dohas, which are mainly tantric in nature), and not in the Sutras. But "Luminous Mind" and it's many synonyms is found in many places. You argued that Mikyo Dorje says the "luminous Mind" as found in Tathagatagarbha doctrine, and the Sutras in general, is different from this mind in the Tantras. So...if you are arguing that the "Luminous Nature of Mind" as found in Non-Tantric Material is different, essentially, than that found in the Dohas and Tantras, would you explain exactly in what way?

To quote from your currently favorite book, "The Center of the Sunlit Sky," p.62:"In the sutras, the Tantric meaning is taught implicitly in a hidden manner, but the Sutric path does not operate with Buddha nature as it is taught in the Tantras."

The question, then, is what is the difference between Buddha Nature as taught in the Sutras, and as taught in the Tantras. Another question might be: is that which is taught implicitly, in a hidden manner, nonetheless "existent" there?

And also another one of Brunnholzl's books, Straight from the Heart, which includes some great info about Maitripa and his "blending of Sutra and Tantra"--pretty clear it happened before Gampopa's time.

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Jinzang wrote:I hate to drag my teacher into my controversy, but as Lama Phurbu Tashi put it once, "If mahamudra is understood, all of Tibetan Buddhism makes sense. If it's not understood, none of it makes sense."

That could also be said of Zen (exchanging a few words for other words of course)

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Yes, Yensen. We all agreed that the Dohas are Tantric, and they are a primary source. I don't think there's any debate about that. The debate really boils down to whether or not there's evidence or support for Mahamudra and Dzogchen in the sutras.

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, Yensen....and I respect yours.Check out Maitripa's tradition, if you care to. But the main thing is to practice. I'm frankly not interested in arguments and debates about the "legitimacy" ot "textual support" of any approach, these days. Others may feel differently.

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, Yensen....and I respect yours.Check out Maitripa's tradition, if you care to. But the main thing is to practice. I'm frankly not interested in arguments and debates about the "legitimacy" ot "textual support" of any approach, these days. Others may feel differently.

I'm with you on that. The thousand plus year history of Mahamudra and Dzogchen practice is long enough to have entablished its own legitimacy, even if a bunch of Bengali beach bums just made it all up (unlikely).